So bradys ty cobb slide is fined the same amount as socks being to low. Brady should have been fined a lot more. Just my opinion

Oh my gosh...

Read through the thread. Gore is a second time offender and Brady is a first time offender with no history of "dirty" play. Thus, Gore received the agreed upon penalty as set out in the CBA, while Brady received the minimum punishment mandated by the CBA._________________

So bradys ty cobb slide is fined the same amount as socks being to low. Brady should have been fined a lot more. Just my opinion

Oh my gosh...

Read through the thread. Gore is a second time offender and Brady is a first time offender with no history of "dirty" play. Thus, Gore received the agreed upon penalty as set out in the CBA, while Brady received the minimum punishment mandated by the CBA.

R-GOODY don't need that money, son. He gets his chedda, can't be upsetting his gal, you know. His gal Tom Brady need that money to get his hair did, get his nails did, buy some more of them Uggs boots with the fur - lookin all fly, so R-GOODY gets that money, yo.

That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.

Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness.

And ... what? Replacing one arbitrary rule with another equally arbitrary rule is commendable? Replacing an arbitrary rule just for the sake of because is equally arbitrary.

That's the point you're missing. "This rule is stupid, so I shouldn't have to follow it." Because, why exactly? Why is this rule any less ridiculous than any of the other uniform rules? Why restrict shoe colors? Why disallow messages on eye black? Why are any of these things less arbitrary or objectionable?

And again, why can they fine for wearing the wrong socks but not for wearing the right socks the wrong way?

It's not equally arbitrary. Gore did it because he thought he'd play better.

Agreed. My question is why do they have a rule about socks in the first place?

Well, you have two choices when establishing rules like that. You can either make them fairly lax, and then adjust them as incidents arise, or you can make everything very cut and dry and strict from the get go, and avoid issues initially. In a sport that draws so many viewers, it is far better to just be safe in advance._________________
Adopt-a-Chief: Travis "Better Than Tony Moeaki" Kelce
67 catches, 862 yards, 5 TDs, one very funny obscene gesture, one fumble that wasn't a fumble, and one very trolly fumble recovery for a TD

That's the thing though: Rules change. They change all the time. The kick off line was arbitrary too. The league decided perhaps it'd better if they changed the arbitrary point at which teams kicked off, so they changed it.

Keeping a rule in place and then never ever ever EVER questioning ebcause it's been around forever and cus the NFL said so isn't commendable behavior, it's stubborness.

And ... what? Replacing one arbitrary rule with another equally arbitrary rule is commendable? Replacing an arbitrary rule just for the sake of because is equally arbitrary.

That's the point you're missing. "This rule is stupid, so I shouldn't have to follow it." Because, why exactly? Why is this rule any less ridiculous than any of the other uniform rules? Why restrict shoe colors? Why disallow messages on eye black? Why are any of these things less arbitrary or objectionable?

And again, why can they fine for wearing the wrong socks but not for wearing the right socks the wrong way?

It's not equally arbitrary. Gore did it because he thought he'd play better.

First thought unrelated to the second. It is equally arbitrary. If you make an arbitrary rule, you're necessarily being arbitrary with where you decide to draw the line. If you decide to move the line, you're still being arbitrary. That's just the nature of it.

And that Gore thought he'd play better is irrelevant. I'm sure a lot of players think they'll play better without the pads next year, too. Doesn't mean they won't be fined if they don't wear them. (I intentionally avoided the most obvious PED analogy here so we hopefully won't miss the forest because of all the trees.)_________________

MrDrew wrote:

Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?